State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Anil Jamnadas Ahuja, vs The Sales Manager, Daewoo Anchor ... on 7 October, 2011
A- 1442/2004
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA,
MUMBAI
First Appeal No. A/04/2425
(Arisen out of Order Dated
09/12/2004 in Case No. 133/2003 of District Nashik)
1.
ANIL JAMNADAS AHUJA,
3,
VIRNADAVAN RAKA COLONY, SHNARANPUR
RD, NASHIK-422002.
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1.
THE SALES MANAGER, DAEWOO ANCHOR ELECTRONICS LTD.,
HI
TECH PLAZA, 3RD FLR, BLOCK NO.C,
ANDHERI(E), MUMBAI 400 093.
2.
M/S DAEWOO ANCHOR ELECTRONICS LTD.,
NO.1,
ANCHOR HEAVEN APARTMENTS, SURVEY NO.53, OPP. S.R.P.GATE NO.2, WANWADI,
PUNE-411 040.
3.
M/S H. JOSHI BROTHERS SALES PVT. LTD.,
M.
G. ROAD., NASHIK
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Hon'ble
Mr. P.N. Kashalkar PRESIDING MEMBER
Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar Member PRESENT:
None present.
O R D E R Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar Honble Presiding Judicial Member:(1)
This appeal was filed in 2004 by the Complainant himself whose complaint was partly allowed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nashik in Consumer Complaint No.133/2003 decided on 09.12.2004. By allowing the complaint partly against both the Opponents, the District Forum had directed Opponents to repair the fridge of the Complainant and pay compensation of `10/-
per day from 12.04.2003 till actual repairs are carried out. The District Forum also directed to pay costs of `1,000/-
to the Complainant. Not satisfied with the inadequate relief granted, this appeal has been filed by the original Complainant.
(2)This appeal was lying unattended for more that six years in this Commission. After filing of the appeal, Appellant had not taken circulation for admission. As per our policy this appeal was listed for admission before us on 9th August, 2011, on which day on the internet our board was published and this appeal was shown on the notice board of this commission. Still on finding that both parties were absent we had directed office to issue notice. Accordingly on 09.09.2011 notices were issued to both the parties but both parties are absent today. Hence we have proceeded to dispose of this appeal on merit.
(3)The case of the original Complainant in District Forum was that he had purchased refrigerator of Daewoo Company for `44,421/- on 22.05.1997. Said refrigerator carried warranty of 5 years. However, on 05.04.2003 the refrigerator went out of order. The Engineer of the Opponent inspected the refrigerator and told the Complainant that compressor of the fridge was required to be changed.
Complainant insisted that compressor of Daewoo should be installed. The Opponents pleading was that for import of compressor manufactured by Daewoo Company there were some difficulties and they would install the compressor of Kirloskar Company or any other Company which was easily available. But, Complainant was not prepared for the same.
Therefore, he sent registered notice on 28.04.2003 and asked Opponent either to install the compressor of Daewoo Company or take back the fridge and refund costs of fridge. However, the Opponent had not complied with the request of the Complainant and therefore, he filed consumer complaint claiming refund of `44,421/- along with interest @12% per annum and also claimed `300/- per day as damages from 05.04.2003 till refund of monies and also claimed `2,000/- as costs of the proceeding.
(4)Opponent No.1 Daewoo Co. filed written version and denied the allegations made by the Complainant. According to Opponent No.1 as per complaint dated 05.04.2003 they attended the complaint and found that the compressor of the fridge was required to be changed.
But, since new compressor was not available they were prepared to give compressor of another Company but Complainant was not prepared to take the same. Therefore, they pleaded that they were not guilty of deficiency in service and they therefore prayed that complaint should be dismissed with costs.
(5)Opponent No.2 Local Dealer of Nashik filed written version and pleaded that the compressor of Daewoo Company was not available and when it was available Complainant did not contact him and therefore, he was not liable for the alleged deficiency in service. The dealer also pleaded that the product is warranted by manufacturer and not the dealer. So, it is the manufacturer who is responsible and not the dealer in any manner. The District Forum held that there was deficiency in service on the part of Opponent Nos.1 and 2 and therefore, they directed that they should replace the compressor of the Complainants refrigerator by giving another compressor of Daewoo Company and should pay `10/- per day as damages from 12.04.2003 till actual repairs of the fridge and also they should pay `1,000/- as costs of litigation to the Complainant.
Not satisfied with the reliefs granted the Complainant himself has filed this appeal and his main grievance appears to be in the appeal memo is that he should have been paid daily compensation of `300/- per day and not `10/- per day as awarded by the District Forum.
(6)In our view the demand of the Complainant/Appellant in the appeal is exorbitant and illogical and absurd. What is pertinent to note is the fact that Complainant had purchased the fridge on 22.05.1997 and there was five years warranty for the product. Five years ended on 21.05.2002 and refrigerator of the Appellant got out of repair on 05.04.2003. Thus compressor had been burnt. So after five years there was no warranty on the part of the manufacturer or dealer in respect of product sold. But still Opponents in their written version pleaded that they were ready to repair the fridge of the Complainant but since there was difficulty in procuring import of Daewoo compressor they suggested that Complainant should agree to install the local made compressor of Kirloskar or any other Company but Complainant was not prepared for the same and he filed consumer complaint and ultimately consumer complaint was wrongly allowed by the District Forum since fridge had developed technical fault after a period of five years and there was warranty for five years period and after five years the Complainant had to pay for all the services rendered by the manufacturer or by local dealer. Since they have not come in appeal we are finding that the appeal filed by Complainant is devoid of any substance.
In our view the order passed by the District Forum does not require any modification and there cannot be any sort of enhancement as desired by the Appellant herein. The appeal is devoid of any substance and hence, we pass the following order:
O R D E R
(i) Appeal stands dismissed.
(ii) No order as to costs.
(iii) Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced on 7th October, 2011.
[Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar] PRESIDING MEMBER [Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar] Member ep